I disagree with Jim's stance about the "Game companies are businesses" argument. When I, for one, say "X is a business", what I mean is not "Shut up and be grateful to these Hallowed Jobs Creators"; what I mean is "You should never expect a for-profit company to do the right thing without strong outside pressure".

Semantics aside, there's a seldom mentioned effect on hardcore gamers entitlement: how often it translates into misaimed complaints and outrage.

For instance:How the Mass Effect series caught a lot of hate for giving an ending that did not pander to its audience power fantasies, yet few complained about the staggering number of glitches and bugs in the PS3 versions, or about the level design becoming increasingly simplistic and CoDesque as the series progressed.

OrHow Nintendo has been under constant fire for refusing to suicidally re-enter the hardware arms race, but received virtually no criticism for remaining understaffed even said understaffing led them to release a new console running on an unfinished OS

When one is presenting peccadillos, or worse, deliberate choices in design as unforgivable blunder to the point of completely ignoring much larger problems, it's very likely that one is indeed indulging in entitlement.

***

I've never seen anyone mention the entitlement issue ever since the ME3 crisis. It pretty much went away a few weeks after the extended cut.

The thing about Mass Effect 3's ending was that there were actually two very distinct groups of complainers:One disliked the ending because it was in their view too short and not detailed enough. After over a hundred hours of game, they wished and expected for something akin to FF6's ending.The second group despised the ending because they wanted a triumphalist conclusion to their power fantasy.One group was providing legitimate criticism, the other one was indeed a bunch of entitled manchildren pissed because their collective masturbatory power-fantasy about being an invincible Space Marine was pretty much shattered when Harbinger crippled Shepard at the end, and this group was waaaaaaay more noisy than the rest, to the point were an outside observer could be forgiven if she concluded that the second group was the only one to exist.

Thankfully, the extended cut gave a more satisfactory conclusion to the first group while giving a resounding Fuck You Very Much to the second group in the form of the fourth ending. This affair ended miraculously well because Bioware managed to address the thoughtful complains without caving to the whims of the vociferous entitled group and pulling an I Am Legend.

00slash00:A world where I can say that I love the Fina Fantasy 13 series and that I was satisfied with the Mass Effect 3 ending, without being attacked? Do I dare to dream?

Let's go claim an uncharted island and populate it with our favorite maligned treasures. I swear, so often in the gaming community, I get maligned like a leper for liking unpopular games. Hell, I always felt like the ME3 endings had several important points to make, and even the game as a whole. For starters, sometimes the universe doesn't give a damn if you don't want something to happen. You aren't God, and happy or sad endings to a journey aren't always based on whether or not you deserve them. Even so, every choice ou made in the series ever has colored your choice in the final events. Why would you banish the Reapers instead of destroying them and all AI with them? Why would you choose synthesis? Is it not because you were led here, from the very moment you touched the Beacon; to be the Shepard who sacrifices him/herself to ensure the flock can be saved?

My thought to this use of "entitled" as an insult has always been "Yes, I am entitled. When I hand over $60 for a product, I'm entitled to a quality product. And if a company doesn't want to provide a quality product, they are NOT entitled to my money. I'll spend it elsewhere."

So yes, go ahead and call me entitled because I don't accept the way Rockstar launched GTA V. Call me entitled because I won't pay $40 for the good version of Metal Gear Solid Ground Zeroes. Call me entitled because I won't pay $500 for an Xbox One, which is $100 more than it's more powerful competitor because MS focused on a fancy camera instead of horsepower. Call me entitled because I won't buy digital stuff over a certain price point from Nintendo because they tie digital purchases to the hardware instead of to the Nintendo Network account you can have on both 3DS and Wii U now.

Go ahead because I am entitled god dammit. I bust my ass to earn my money, and these companies had better damn well bust their asses in kind if they want any of it. If I was as lazy and half-assed things as much as these game publishers and platform holders do, I'd get fired so they could hire somebody better to take my place. So why should I just hand over my money for something that's half-assed and not up to snuff?

It's publishers who need to stop acting so entitled, not the gaming consumers. Stop acting so entitled to our money and start fucking earning our money with quality products and services.

Nixou:Semantics aside, there's a seldom mentioned effect on hardcore gamers entitlement: how often it translates into misaimed complaints and outrage.

For instance:How the Mass Effect series caught a lot of hate for giving an ending that did not pander to its audience power fantasies, yet few complained about the staggering number of glitches and bugs in the PS3 versions, or about the level design becoming increasingly simplistic and CoDesque as the series progressed.

OrHow Nintendo has been under constant fire for refusing to suicidally re-enter the hardware arms race, but received virtually no criticism for remaining understaffed even said understaffing led them to release a new console running on an unfinished OS

I've seen both of those criticized before. In fact, I've criticized Mass Effect myself for that very thing: turning into more and more a generic third person shooter, complete with crappy cover and dodge mechanics that don't work well because they map too much stuff to one button. And even if people don't realize it, when they complain about Wii U not having enough games, they're effectively complaining about Nintendo's poor staffing and preparation for HD game development. It's cause and effect. Most people are complaining about the effect, either because they don't know or care what the cause is.

Also, I could point out how you in turn singled out Nintendo for releasing a console with an unfinished OS but conveniently ignored that the PS4 and Xbone did the same thing. I'm actually quite pissed that Sony still hasn't made good on their promise to remove HDCP from the PS4, and I'm flabbergasted that Microsoft just released a firmware update to add hard drive management and a controller battery indicator to the Xbone. This kind of thing SHOULD be unnacceptable. Gamers should be riding Sony and Microsoft (and not in a good way) for this bullshit. Instead, gamers give Sony blowjobs for their latest firmware update which only added the ability for Sony to sell more of their own brand of headsets and forgive Xbone all its shortcomings because OMG TITANFALL IS COMING NEXT MONTH. I mean I know not everyone will care about HDCP as much as someone like me would, but how the fuck did Microsoft get away with not having the ability to manage your hard drive space on day one. Where was the outrage and cupcakes on that one?! >_<

"Entitled" is not interchangeable with "bratty and childish".It is a word that has neither positive nor negative connotation and must be put in context "stop acting like you're entitled to X"."You're entitled" literally means absolutely nothing.You always need to be entitled to something, just being "entitled" means about as much as being "searching" or "wanting".

I am puzzled how many people latched onto it as some sort of negative connotation and it is ironic how you call for a stop of the bastardization of this buzzword and then proceed to perpetuate it and stretch if even further by somehow suggesting that people attacking people for their opinions somehow falls under the ever expanding umbrella of "being entitled" which, at some point, will just be synonymous for "bad".

Right.. Anita is the only one whos allowed to post her opinions as fact and shut down any discussion by simply not allowing it and never ever answering her critics who bring up valid points...

Once again the Jesus Anita syndrome at work. Shes allowed to do what other people are being told off for on jimquisition as if she was an untouchable defender of justice when in truth she causes more damage for her cause then she does good.

For the rest thought i totaly agree. Hating Players of games you dont like is stupid since it really has no effect on you personaly. Yes its annyoing that everyone wanted to jump onto the CoD train but it certainly didnt stop the attempt of a comeback of the Space sim genre for example (star citizen) or the turn based strategy game genre (Warlock 2 and Age of wonders 3.. cant wait for the latter one)

Same for hating on "game journalists" when they simply enjoy a game. Thought there is a case to be made for reviews.. like a certain dragon age 2 review that gave perfect score totaly ignoring the glaring and kinda obvious issues with the game. You will have to accept that people call you out on your opinon and dispute it, if youre not prepared for that then what are you doing on the internet? BUT outright insulting and name calling goes way to far.

As for entitlement... if i pay up to 60 dollars i am well entitled to get the product as advertised including advertised features (looking at you ME3) simply as that. Just like any other industry out there.. the software industry is no special little flower like everyone makes it out to be. The only special rules are in copyrights and nothing else.

I find that most people who attack other people for having counter opinions are just being dick heads. I know because I often fall into that trap (though attempts are being made to stop that). I see your point, though.

Karadalis:Right.. Anita is the only one whos allowed to post her opinions as fact and shut down any discussion by simply not allowing it and never ever answering her critics who bring up valid points...

Once again the Jesus Anita syndrome at work. Shes allowed to do what other people are being told off for on jimquisition as if she was an untouchable defender of justice when in truth she causes more damage for her cause then she does good.

The problem with the whole mess is that people can't just disagree with her. I disagree with her on a lot of points. But people, this website included, can't just disagree with her and stop there. They have to attack everything about her, the fact that she's wearing make up, the fact that years ago she said something that means we don't have to take anything she says seriously. Jim doesn't think that Anita is Jesus, I don't think that she's Jesus, but people are reacting to her so violently and viciously that people feel obligated to call out the abuse when they see it. Go ahead and disagree with her points, just argue with a logical and level head and attack her points, not her.

...So where is Jim on the topic of Mass Effect 3? Are gamers entitled for wanting or requesting an alternative ending, or only if they expect one?

It's a pretty blurred line, because if you don't expect a reaction from your request, then you're less likely to put the same energy, arguments and honest feelings, than if you didn't expect them to and then entitlement becomes a messy definition that sort of, kind of fits but not in the spirit of the word.Maybe I'm overdefining this and maybe it should be hope, rather than expectation, which puts the discussion in another light.

The way I see it, it's a trilogy of games that held the hearts and minds of a lot of people and that's worth something in itself and might be enough to make a firm request, which should be taken seriously, which it was not (proof being their written response and the action of expanding on the ending that was disliked).

I think this episode laid bare only the most obvious answers that anyone can discover for themselves if they're interested. When people lash out against others who present their opinions strongly, it's because they don't understand eachother. I think Jim is treading lightly not to really take sides or express any strong opinions, because there are enough people who genuinly feel that others have no right to complain if they didn't do research beforehand and while I disagree with that point of view, it doesn't make it less valid (too bad if you didn't want spoilers :/).

What bothers me, is that I'm not allowed to expect any compassion or goodwill from Bioware or EA if I think they should change the ending. Since when is it not okay to hold a company to a level of excellence or do something good for others..? It seems ridiculous to me to just say "It's a company" and leave it at that, unchallenged.

xPixelatedx:Jim, can you really blame people for being mad at the near perfect reviews for games like Mass Effect 3? I know you keep defending other game journalists, and keep saying there is no way anyone is giving anything but their honest opinion and they can have any opinion they want. The latter is most definitely true, but do you really blame people for not believing the former? The reason why I am using Mass Effect 3 is because that thing got pretty high reviews and good praise, while simultaneously being one of the most reviled and hated games ever made. The fallout was so bad the better business bureau was involved and certain places were offering full refunds for the game; even if it had been played. I've never even seen that before...

People were upset at the reviews, and yeah some people acted like spoiled brats and demanded they be changed. That I don't agree with, I'm with you there. People can have their stupid opinions, thats fine, but I don't think other people have to swallow BS either. I have no doubt Mass Effect 3 was potentially a good game for some people, maybe even great to others... but 90/100s, 100/100s, 9/10s and 10/10s!? Jim, are you telling me the kind of game that would create as much negative feedback as ME3 did is deserving of those scores? If a game that badly received is deserving of 10s and inane praise, then we might as well do away with game reviews all together, because there is no longer a use for them. That's why people are upset, this is a confirmation that A:'We are being bullshitted by people being paid to praise things', or B:The rating systems are so bizarre they don't even make any logical sense anymore, so they cannot be used for or applied to purchases of average consumers in any way'.

I agree. I think reasonable points like this too often get lost in the constant back and forth between the two extreme sides. Even, no especially, on the internet, discusion gets drowned out by those way too invested in proving the otherside not only wrong but intellectually or morally inferior to them based on one disagreement. No one can see anyone elses view point it's all just a massive pissing contest.

Epic video against ad hominems and dismissal of others opinions or ability to have their own opinions. Thanks Jim.

People get to have an opinion, end of story. Whether their argument is specifically valid or not will indeed always be a case by case scenario but they still deserve to have their own side. If I'm wrong, it's not because I'm childish or foolish or any of that white noise, it's because the elements of my argument are incorrect. So a racist calling me a asshole for saying that we shouldn't be racist doesn't make my argument incorrect and isn't condusive to a legitimate discussion.

I've also always found ad hominems as a specific type of red herring. Saying that gamers are just being childish doesn't make us wrong even if true.

Nixou:I disagree with Jim's stance about the "Game companies are businesses" argument. When I, for one, say "X is a business", what I mean is not "Shut up and be grateful to these Hallowed Jobs Creators"; what I mean is "You should never expect a for-profit company to do the right thing without strong outside pressure".

If I'm interpreting the video correctly, Jim's argument wouldn't apply to you then. Your statement is merely an observation. It isn't an observation ergo people debating against what they've done should "shut up". It's merely saying that companies are going to keep on doing bad things unless sufficient reason not to do so is made manifest.

This would be more along the lines of people who say that we as the customers don't have any right to complain about DRM because companies are entitled to do what they want. What Jim is saying is that both sides are entitled so that argument is wrong by way of assuming the two sides having entitlement is somehow mutually exclusive.

Businesses are entitled to take reasonable actions to make money. Consumers are entitled to get what they paid for and to complain if they don't feel like that happened.

Those two entitlements do butt heads, but that's because they're in a sisyphian struggle of tug of war against one another. Dismissing one side because the other side exists is flawed by ignoring the fact that both exist so the other side can use the exact same logic to the same effect.

00slash00:A world where I can say that I love the Final Fantasy 13 series and that I was satisfied with the Mass Effect 3 ending, without being attacked? Do I dare to dream?

As someone who didn't feel satisfied by ME3's ending, all I can say about your dream is;

x3 NOPE! *Bites your heal*

:) Nah, but really. As a Final Fantasy 12 fan, I can understand what you mean.

Given enough time, most reasonable people will chill out about it.I didn't like the original ending, but I felt the DLC one they added made the whole thing more "digestible", without changing it TOO much from what it was before.Shep is always dead. :( But Shep lived well......Unless they were A-holes. ;p

ultreos2:Anita Sarkeesian is pushing a political goal and has nothing to do with the actual health of gamers.

I've seen all her videos and unless she releases another video proving otherwise, her intent is not the benefit of gamers but rather a political agenda akin to that of Jack Thompson.

The problem is that a lot of the groups under attack are the ones that allow companies to do the things that your calling justified criticism. To put things into perspective, without say "Farmville" players you probably never wound have seen things like "Dungeon Keeper Online", without "Call Of Duty" players you wouldn't see shooter franchises strangling the market. For that matter without FPS players purchasing overpriced map packs it probably wouldn't have lead to the gaming industry embracing a lot of the DLC practices you see now. There is a point where you have to realize, as balanced and fair as you might want to be, that some groups of people DO represent a "cancer" afflicting the whole. The problem of course being that today people have been socially conditioned to think it's wrong to weed out groups of people and take action against them, and to look at the individual and what you can see on a personal level rather than looking at the type of person as a group or what that person does when your not around, whether that applies to general social politics, or more limited cosms like gaming.

Right now, the fact that the gaming industry can rely on the casual gamers to pretty much support whatever garbage they churn out, and prop up some of these business models, is exactly why casual gamers need to be forced out of gaming. On some levels those making points about "entitled" gamers being a minority are correct because so called "real" gamers have become a minority in their own hobby compared to the casual sheeple that make it viable to pretty much focus only on "Call Of Duty" and similar established franchises, neglect entire generes of games, and make enough money off of things like "Dungeon Keeper Mobile" that it and games like "Trexels" become a viable business strategy which overshadows all else.

If you target the companies and their practices exclusively, it makes no real difference because the core that allows them to sustain those practices remains untouched. Not only do you need to keep the pressure up on a business level, you ALSO need to put pressure on the base propping it up.

It should be noted that picking up a casual game and playing it occasionally is no big thing, that doesn't mean your not a real gamer if you wind up supporting other things as well. It should be noted that the problem here are the legions of people that play things like that, pay the money, and do little or nothing else.

Ideally the industry would take the time and effort to support all gamers, it would produce the casual games (including shooters), the turn based RPGs, the adventure games, metroidvania platformers and similar things in numbers sufficient to at least keep the gamers fairly satisfied, as opposed to focusing on the same money-grabbing garbage each year and maybe kicking over a decent RPG once in a blue moon (and once they do, casualization to make things "even more popular" sets in and generally divides the fan base). Neglect major audiences, especially groups like RPG fans that really were responsible for the gaming industry getting to the point where it is now, and expect backlash. Right now though the industry won't do that, it's content to simply focus on the most profitable sectors, rather than dealing with still profitable but not as profitable groups like serious RPG gamers, and as a result you see these kinds of tensions.

Now here comes the more controversial parts:

1. When it comes to Anita Sarkessian, it should be noted she is by and large a cancer on the gaming culture. It's not so much that she has a position that is different from so many people, it's that her position is pretty much a non-issue and the extent to which she takes it, and before such a large audience, has a chance of doing actual damage to gaming as a whole.

The typical "defense" of Anita is that "nobody wants to take your games away from you" when really, that is kind of what she's all about. Her basic objective is to "change" the gaming industry based on the projection that games are in some way sexist for how they portray female characters, and the idea that the elements she points out should be removed entirely.

Someone like Anita for example asserts that the physical perfection of female characters is some how "sexist" and reducing them to mere eye candy. That's hardly the case especially when you consider heroic fantasy as a whole and the characters created by and for women. Basically gaming represents both sides more or less equally, where the guys are all buffed with crazy amounts of muscle definition, and the girls tend to also be heavily toned and at least nice looking. It's sort of like putting Mr. and Mrs. Olympia up on a pedestal next to each other when you get down to it, except someone is saying it's sexist in Mrs. Olympia's case because there is a platform for that.

She also tends to rant and rave about damsels in distress, and then when people point out how many strong female characters there are besides that, especially now, she rants and raves about other tropes and how all of them are sexist to, and really she pretty much seems oriented on trying to maintain a feminist platform to get attention and rile people more than she's actually championing any real, constructive, causes, she just plays the game of doing so in order to garner sympathy rather well.

2. I'll be blunt, I'm not sure if the gaming industry can be saved, which is why I am one of those who has been suspecting that there will be another crash. We're at a point right now where "real gamers" really don't represent enough of a financial stake compared to casuals that we can influence all that much. By costing the gaming industry money, all we do is cause it to do is consider re-investing more towards casual games. Indeed we already see industry announcements about this with a lot of companies saying they want to move away from AAA game development entirely to focus on the new frontier of "app space" and micro-transaction fueled cash grabs. They pretty much want to sheer the sheeple as long and hard as they can.

This pretty much means that things are likely to get worse before they get better as the people at the top don't have any sense of shame OR loyalty to the customer base that got them where they are. Really, if the industry crashes the publishers at the top are likely to float to the ground safely with their golden parachutes and leave the flaming wreckage of countless development houses and out of work employees with unreasonable employment standards behind them like when other businesses have gone down before them. The crash here being caused if the "sheeple" eventually move on to something else, or wake up and realize how badly they have been being exploited.

Increasing neglect and they very fact that these companies can go off about "entitlement" while whining about the AAA game market and it's costs, makes me think that really we don't have that much power in this relationship, otherwise they would be more careful already. This means that short of say mass violence, where a bunch of angry gamers put on masks and start raiding publishers and development house, nailing EA executives to giant video game symbols and lighting them on fire in the parking lot, while gunning down police en-masse in order to show we can't be stopped... really there is no way to regain power in this relationship, and at the end of the day even hardcore gamers realize it's just games, it's not worth using terror tactics to try and maintain, it's better to let a crash happen, and hope that the next round of game producers learn the lessons of the past this time, or at least we get a couple of decent decades before they go flying off the handle again.... and really I just can't see a bunch of gamers in executioner hoods or guy fawkes masks storming a corporate HQs like Frankenstein's castle in an old monster movie. I'd actually be surprised to see a hardcore gamer that actually has a decent pitchfork, and really without a few of those to set the scene it just doesn't work, amirite? :)

Or in short, I keep trying, but at the end of the day when I look at things rationally I think we're doomed. It's sort of like my thoughts on "Occupy Wall Street" where people rallied without the violence, that means nothing (except an eyesore) to people who can just fly over the crowds in their private helicopters. Right now the industry ultimately holds so many cards, that they can kind of ignore us, which is half the problem. Your typical publisher's attitude is akin to "I'm sorry, I can't hear what your saying over the sounds of all these counting machines sorting my money..."

Karadalis:Right.. Anita is the only one whos allowed to post her opinions as fact and shut down any discussion by simply not allowing it and never ever answering her critics who bring up valid points...

Once again the Jesus Anita syndrome at work. Shes allowed to do what other people are being told off for on jimquisition as if she was an untouchable defender of justice when in truth she causes more damage for her cause then she does good.

The problem with the whole mess is that people can't just disagree with her. I disagree with her on a lot of points. But people, this website included, can't just disagree with her and stop there. They have to attack everything about her, the fact that she's wearing make up, the fact that years ago she said something that means we don't have to take anything she says seriously. Jim doesn't think that Anita is Jesus, I don't think that she's Jesus, but people are reacting to her so violently and viciously that people feel obligated to call out the abuse when they see it. Go ahead and disagree with her points, just argue with a logical and level head and attack her points, not her.

The make up thing IS a valid point of criticism thought since she made an entire video about how these "gender identifier" are bad hmmkay? She derides these things while wearing them herselfe... pot meet cattle much?

And here it is again... the theory that somehow the legions of people who rightfully critize Anita and the points she brings up as attacking her personally.

Look we dont have to argue that 4chan is the Mos isley of the internet. However she shuts down not only those but ALL critics valid or not. She does not allow any other opinion to be heard but her own and never engages her critics in conversation, mostly due to the fact that she would be unable to defend her own position if seriously questioned.

She never adressed the video where she says shes not a gamer, nor has she ever adressed the stolen footage issues or that she never actually played the games she claims are being sexist.

All that and she is still held up by people like Jim as anything else but a dubios person who through a genius marketing blitz made a buttload of cash and got herselfe into a position where she could actually do harm and allready has done to gaming. (Reinforcing the stereotype of the mysoginistic male white gamer on national TV is just as damaging as jack thompson ranting about violent video games, despite claims otherwise people do listen to these people)

See it would be different if Jim ever took a different stance then "Shes fighting the good fight and there is nothing wrong with her arguments"

Just because she claims shes in it for female rights instead for her own bank account

Also where are those vicious and violent reactions? The majority of critisim pointed towards her outside of the dark corners of the web are level headed and not pointed at her personality.

Take The escapists "no right answer" video about this topic... they didnt attack her personaly in any way or forms yet there where countless comments about how the guys from no right answer where mysoginistic. What.. the... fuck?

And jim does support the "jesus anita" trope.. since he never ever said something not positive about her in his jimquisition. Thought he never gets tired about harping on how we all should stop "attacking" anita when in truth he seems to mean that we should stop critizising her opinions and take them as fact... the very thing he critizeses in this very video about people wanting to enforce their opinion on others. Weird isnt it?

The damsel in distress trope would be morally wrong if the female was in distress due to some percieved flaw with the gender itself. Anita's argument is often broader than that. Some girls are dumb and do make mistakes, just like males do. So depicting a woman who is simply dumb magically turns into an evil trope even those said women really do exist and even though the game doesn't necessarily make the claim that women are typically that way. Real women are weaker than men on average by a significant margin (testosterone is a hell of a thing where strength is concerned, it's like one gender is doing steroids), so that's why the damsel in distress is such a common theme. What I think the takeaway from damsel in distress games is that its our duty, if we have the strength, to aid people who the strong take advantage of. Games don't train people to make women into damsels. It trains people to be the good guys. And I don't mean "rescuing" a girl from work or some silly ever-day thing. I mean coming to aid of a girl who is being beaten or raped. Same should be true for any weaker party being taken advantage of by the strong merely because they are weaker.

It's interesting that in today's society female characters have to be perfect intellectually and emotionally while also being competent physically. In some ways, feminism is just another side of a coin that portrays women perfectly. One side being perfect aesthetically, the other side being perfect internally. Both overstepping on reality.

If I'm tired of Anita, it's moreso the way she runs with things by holding onto a faulty premise without sticking around long enough to qualify the givens. She has every right to voice her opinions but thankfully we also have a right to be tired of it.

My question is this: Can anyone show any proof that gamers are more entitled than ANY other consumer demographic?

Really. What makes gamers more entitled than movie goers, or book readers, or sports watchers? Has anyone worked at a fast food restaurant? Are you really going to suggest gamers are more entitled than the customers you dealt with there? Anyone ever heard anyone complain about the price of gas? What entitlement.

Fact is, everyone everywhere acts "entitled." And since that's the reality of the world, the question is "Is that a bad thing?" When paying money for something, does that not entitle you to be able to complain about it?

One problem in this episode: Just because people "attacked" games critics for liking Mass Effect 3 doesn't mean that they expected them to change their scores. If you truly thought it was good, I can think AND say you're an idiot without being "entitled." If you think your opinions can't be attacked then I think that's where the actual entitlement is.

See, you can't call a game like Dungeon Keeper mobile poison to the industry and then turn around and say that calling someone who says they like Dungeon Keeper mobile and pays money for it a poison to the industry is wrong. That's just wishy washy weak. After all, Dungeon Keeper mobile is only a poison BECAUSE of the people who support it and ensure more games like it come out. Quit being afraid to call people what they are.

The irony of all this is that such a simple point (people have opinions and such opinions shouldn't be allowed to devolve into ad hominem tactics) is being debated in this thread by people who seemingly can't agree as to what Anita Sarkeesian represents for the gaming culture.

Once again, I'd just like to say that while I don't agree with all of her conclusions, I have to admit that she does underline the rather extreme use the industry has for tropes and "Fill-in-the-blanks" character archetypes. I like to imagine the day in which a Brand New Game, with an utterly untested genre and ground-breaking characterization efforts, will surface. If that ever happens, we'll have transcended Sarkeesian's worries about the noxious effects of certain character archetypes.

Do I see that happening, though? Not really. It's in human nature to want easily digestible pieces of entertainment, and nothing is more easily digestible than the same goddamn Aesop about Good trimumphing over Evil or the Damsel in Distress being rescued. These notions pass the test in nearly all of the world's cultures, as demeaning as they might be, and for better or for worse, games are marketed goods that need to sell.

The crux of it is that Jim is right. Having an opinion is one thing, and I enjoy articulating mine or those of others in pleasant company. Attacking someone else because their opinion differs from yours, though, is the lowest of all things you could claim to do from an intellectual point of view. No amount of "empirical" evidence validates the idea of demeaning someone else - but it's hard as Hell to distinguish between what FEELS right and what IS right.

Karadalis:Right.. Anita is the only one whos allowed to post her opinions as fact and shut down any discussion by simply not allowing it and never ever answering her critics who bring up valid points...

Once again the Jesus Anita syndrome at work. Shes allowed to do what other people are being told off for on jimquisition as if she was an untouchable defender of justice when in truth she causes more damage for her cause then she does good.

The problem with the whole mess is that people can't just disagree with her. I disagree with her on a lot of points. But people, this website included, can't just disagree with her and stop there. They have to attack everything about her, the fact that she's wearing make up, the fact that years ago she said something that means we don't have to take anything she says seriously. Jim doesn't think that Anita is Jesus, I don't think that she's Jesus, but people are reacting to her so violently and viciously that people feel obligated to call out the abuse when they see it. Go ahead and disagree with her points, just argue with a logical and level head and attack her points, not her.

The make up thing IS a valid point of criticism thought since she made an entire video about how these "gender identifier" are bad hmmkay? She derides these things while wearing them herselfe... pot meet cattle much?

And here it is again... the theory that somehow the legions of people who rightfully critize Anita and the points she brings up as attacking her personally.

Look we dont have to argue that 4chan is the Mos isley of the internet. However she shuts down not only those but ALL critics valid or not. She does not allow any other opinion to be heard but her own and never engages her critics in conversation, mostly due to the fact that she would be unable to defend her own position if seriously questioned.

She never adressed the video where she says shes not a gamer, nor has she ever adressed the stolen footage issues or that she never actually played the games she claims are being sexist.

All that and she is still held up by people like Jim as anything else but a dubios person who through a genius marketing blitz made a buttload of cash and got herselfe into a position where she could actually do harm and allready has done to gaming. (Reinforcing the stereotype of the mysoginistic male white gamer on national TV is just as damaging as jack thompson ranting about violent video games, despite claims otherwise people do listen to these people)

See it would be different if Jim ever took a different stance then "Shes fighting the good fight and there is nothing wrong with her arguments"

Just because she claims shes in it for female rights instead for her own bank account

Also where are those vicious and violent reactions? The majority of critisim pointed towards her outside of the dark corners of the web are level headed and not pointed at her personality.

Take The escapists "no right answer" video about this topic... they didnt attack her personaly in any way or forms yet there where countless comments about how the guys from no right answer where mysoginistic. What.. the... fuck?

No. There's a difference. She chose to put on make up, the characters in video games had it slapped on them because "girls wear bows right"? Also, that would only make sense if the make up was only there to establish that she's a woman. It's the difference between a woman having a low cut top in a video game just to show off and a woman with a low cut top going off to a night club IRL to have a good time. A choice was made and it wasn't just to pander to the LCD

Did I say that? Ok, I may not have been clear on that, there are plenty of people who criticize her rationally and fairly. The screamers about how she isn't a real gamer drown them out. And I'm sorry, while those people are the ones that are the loudest, this woman is still going to be seen as someone who people are trying to shut up. That's just the way it's going to work.

Look, what she's doing on Youtube is kinda questionable but...youtube is not exactly well known for being a place of intellectual conversation. It's more of a place for rape threats.

She never addressed the video where she wasn't a gamer? True, but then again Barrack Obama never showed his birth certificate to Donald Trump. When people are being assholes, I don't see why you should have to prove anything. Granted the stolen footage thing is a bit of a no-no. But never played them? Citation needed.

Jim is not holding her up, he himself said that her videos were rather "meh". What he's doing is getting on the people who are attacking her because of how disgusting they're being about it, and so am I. And don't bring up the money thing again, she only asked for 6,000 dollars, what was she supposed to do when people gave her 300,000? Kickstarter doesn't let her give it back. Maybe the stereotype about the misogynistic white gamer will stop when so many white gamers stop being misogynistic. I'm sorry, she isn't the one who typed in rape threats, I don't see how it's her fault there are so many man children on the internet who can't handle their favorite thing being criticized. Maybe it's a sign that a lot of gamers need to grow up.

He. Did. Not. Say. That.

You kidding? There are people on this very website who still insist that she isn't a real gamer that say "I'd like actual facts in her next video" and just about every last youtube comment section about people railing against her is filled to the brink with hate. Here are a few from the "Anita Sarkessian Is Not a Real Gamer" video

I love this episode; the over/misuse of the term entitled is something that's annoyed me about visiting game forums over the past few years. But it seems to have died down lately. I just figured that many people realize that consumers are actually entitled to an opinion and a complete game for their $60; however the definition of "complete" seems to be everchanging lately.

The thing is that as an avid game consumer we have two mediums to devour: both the games themselves and the games media which is also a business in that you hope to attract hits (to get better advertising $) by being funny and informative. So I don't see anything wrong with "fans" criticizing games criticism, it's the natural outcome of consuming the material. But I'm just talking about regular criticism not psychotic death threats which I'm sure get thrown around too often.

So, yeah, a lot of her "critics" really are just angry misogynists. And even the highest standards of rational criticism of her aren't that great.

I definitely disagree. I also think that, if you think that Sarkeesian rises above the level of her critics in terms of argument, then you're being way too charitable to her.

And it's not the no true scotsman fallacy. I am not dismissing angry trolls, I'm just only referring to the response videos and articles that critique her work and disregarding forum posters. If there are angry people openly being misogynistic, and not doing it on a forum or comments section, then I haven't seen it.

I think that Jim and others dismiss all criticisms as angry misogyny, and that's a problem.

I just don't think it's as big of a problem as it's made out to be, and it certainly isn't the organized movement of the entire male gaming community that she makes it out to be.

It's all in the end a question of freedom of speech, and of Free Market... Buy what you want to buy, and critics what you want to critics. But don't try to force your opinions on others because they are entitled to theyr own opinions...

It's all there. No need to count it.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

How about when the women in the game who get "distressed", but happen to be one of those rare cases of being arguably more powerful than even the male lead?

Like Peach and Zelda?Both are suppose to be the people needed to put things all back in order in their game worlds (hence why Mario and Link got to go get them), and are actually fairly strong, physically, and mystically.

I mean Zelda is a great archer, has holy magic, and can turn into a freaking ninja. Can ya think of a class combo that sounds more OP than that?And while Peach normally does almost nothing in a lot of the main Mario games, Nintendo has showed off her skills in other games, and the comic they had in Nintendo power, where she actually turns out to be pretty freaking awesome.<.< Granted. This was when she was still called Princess Toadstool. So maybe that's why.

Worth a look. Pretty good comic.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

So the whole "well women are just weaker, generally", thing doesn't really hold water for me, as an excuse for why it happens so often in games.

Heck, in one Zelda game she's a badass pirate queen, then she gets found out to be the princess, is told to stay away from the fight, and then is immediately captured. Out of no where.Though, I guess you could spin that as a jab at the hole "keep the women folk out of the fight", but it just seems like they had it happen simply because that's what always happens.

Ya can't say it was just because she happened to be weak. (especially because it wasn't done with physical force)

That's what's so bad about the trope. It's not about them being weak, or dumb. Smart and strong women,(ones in the games that even outshine the men on occasion), get taken and locked away, and it just comes off as a lazy way to hike up the stakes.

It's been done to death, and it's not even needed a lot of the time.

As you put it; "Games don't train people to make women into damsels. It trains people to be the good guys."

We are already saving the world in these games a lot of the time. By proxy, we're already saving ALL the women(and men) then.

Also, the women in games don't need to be perfect. Far from it.They just need to be characters, instead of "that thing we got to go save". In a lot of the damsel in distress trope stories, you could replace the girl/woman with some magical macguffin thing, and the story wouldn't change much.

That's the issue with it all. It's not that D.I.D. is some statement about how women are weak, but rather that it makes them more often than not into something more akin to a prop than a living character.

Plus, I don't think we need games to teach us that beating/raping people is bad. It's kind of an obvious thing.

Okay, I have tried to ignore this. I have tried to move on from this. I had given my thoughts on this when it first happened and tried never to think about it again because it still fills me with a seething, smoldering rage every time I think about it. But it's been TWO DAMN YEARS and people just won't let this issue die. So let me give my definitive final thoughts on the whole Mass Effect 3 Ending Scandal. aka "One Set of Arrogant Douchebags vs Another Set of Arrogant Douchebags where one set at least has the advantage of actually being the ones that made the game." Okay, here it goes:

You wanna hate it? Fine, hate it.You wanna blame EA and/or Bioware for it? Blame away.You wanna boycott every game they've made and will make for it? That's on you.You wanna share your grievances with the world about why you hate it? Go right ahead. I'll even listen to them if you put it out there in a logical manner. Just don't expect me to agree with it.

But here's what you don't do:You don't tell me why I should hate it.You don't tell anyone else who likes it why they should hate it (unless they asked you to).You don't start calling for people's jobs over it.You don't try and bully your feelings about it onto everyone you come across.And you don't expect me to look at whatever thrown together bullshit that you essentially forced them to spit out to placate to you and accept it as anything other than that. (Known from this point on as the Fanfiction Cut.)

Any of you out there want to blow me off as being a blindly loyal fan that wants to ignore any faults, note that I don't just ignore faults, I try and work through them. Since when did trying to figure out a way to not let personal problems and discrepancies ruin your overall enjoyment of a game become code for "accepting substandard shit and letting the company steal your money"? But I just can't do it with the Fanfiction Cut here. I can't go through the last portion of what is my personal and touching story and suddenly see obviously thrown in garbage, starting with the answer to the burning question that nobody who thought about it for more than five seconds needed answered, and wade through a whole mess of unnecessary over-explanations, shitty unimportant epilogues for other characters that were also not needed, and a constant dangling sword of "You thought your decisions didn't matter before? We've now included a fourth decision that completely negates the entire purpose of the series.", just to get to the one final new cutscene that is an ACTUAL, LEGITIMATE, HEARTFELT benefit that would make the previous ending better (which only works with the decision I chose, as the other versions of it were merely bastardized versions of that scene).

And do you know what's really been infuriating since then? The number of people that I've seen trying to give whatever bullshit evidence they dream up that the fourth ending is somehow supposed to be the "official canonical" ending that Bioware had adopted since Day 1! That's right! The game whose official movie, comic and novel tie-ins never gave any definitive gender, description, backstory, or even the first name of its main hero or featured that hero in any of those other related stories because they wanted you to maintain the illusion that it would be your version of the character that everyone was talking about, they officially were leading to an ending that was not featured when the game was first released and could vaguely be referred to by completely screwing up or not buying any of the previous games. Yeah, keep trying to sell that shit to me. Maybe one day I won't want to see you choke on it.

And I will tell everyone out there that, as a dedicated fan of the Mass Effect series, this whole bullshit controversy and this Fanfiction Cut had the very real potential to completely turn me against the Mass Effect series, Bioware, EA, and probably gaming as a whole. If this had been presented as a mandatory download, if the game would somehow not work at all without adding it to my hard drive, if it somehow rewrote the disk itself so that it would be on there no matter what I thought of it, I wouldn't give a damn if the download was free or not, I would be the one calling for a lawsuit against EA and Bioware for false advertising. I would be the one demanding compensation for a product not being what was promised by this company. And I would be the one to contact the Federal Trade Commission and attempt to have them brought up on charges. The only thing that saved the game from this was that it's recurring theme, choice, even pertained to this piece of bile. I didn't want to have to deal with it, so I didn't have to.

So don't come to me and cry about how much time, effort and money you spent and what you feel that you're owed. Because guess what, I spent the same time, effort and money. And while it may not have been presented perfectly, I felt that I was given everything that was promised to me as an ending to this series. If you don't that's YOUR problem, not mine and not anyone else that disagrees with you. I personally think that last year's Tomb Raider was presented in previews as an insult to me as a fan of the Tomb Raider games that came before it and you couldn't pay me $60 to even try it. Yet I didn't seek out every positive review and forum post gushing over the game and tell them how much of a doofus they all collectively were and try to say that they're somehow trying to misrepresent it and should be fired. Because the thing that you all seem to forget is that the one thing that you were raging over was based off of your OPINION. And as such, your opinion does not need to matter to everyone else. If you attempted to play a game and it didn't work, i.e. the game locks up, the sound goes out when it's not supposed to, then that's on the company. If you didn't like the method of how the game is being played, then that's on you. No game is made to cater to you and ONLY you above everyone else.

uanime5:Jim is wrong when he claims that criticising the opinions of game critics is being entitled. If a critic claims a game is the "game of the year" but it turns out that this game is awful then anyone who relied on the critics appraisal has every right to criticise the critic for providing such a misleading review. This is especially true when the critics are paid to review a game on behalf of their audience, since they're not doing their job properly. Examples of this are reviews of games such as Mass Effect 3, Dragon Age 2, and Spore where the majority of critics praised these games but the majority of people who bought these games hated them. These gamers aren't being entitled for criticising the critics, they're just annoyed that the critics didn't do their job.

Finally it's not being entitled to point out that Anita's arguments are heavily skewed rather than informative and that due to their inaccuracies these videos adding nothing to a debate.

Not really the critic calling it "the game of the year" is just his opinion and you thinking it sucks is just yours. He can't be called "misleading" to you if he really thought this game was the best one he every played that particular year. he doesn't even know what types of games you like (or if he even considers them good). You pay the critic to give his opinion on things, not to be lock-step with your opinion which he doesn't even know.

If you think his taste is awful because he likes Dragon Age 2 then find a critic who has taste that matches yours.

Therumancer:The problem is that a lot of the groups under attack are the ones that allow companies to do the things that your calling justified criticism. To put things into perspective, without say "Farmville" players you probably never wound have seen things like "Dungeon Keeper Online", without "Call Of Duty" players you wouldn't see shooter franchises strangling the market. For that matter without FPS players purchasing overpriced map packs it probably wouldn't have lead to the gaming industry embracing a lot of the DLC practices you see now. There is a point where you have to realize, as balanced and fair as you might want to be, that some groups of people DO represent a "cancer" afflicting the whole. The problem of course being that today people have been socially conditioned to think it's wrong to weed out groups of people and take action against them, and to look at the individual and what you can see on a personal level rather than looking at the type of person as a group or what that person does when your not around, whether that applies to general social politics, or more limited cosms like gaming.

Right now, the fact that the gaming industry can rely on the casual gamers to pretty much support whatever garbage they churn out, and prop up some of these business models, is exactly why casual gamers need to be forced out of gaming. On some levels those making points about "entitled" gamers being a minority are correct because so called "real" gamers have become a minority in their own hobby compared to the casual sheeple that make it viable to pretty much focus only on "Call Of Duty" and similar established franchises, neglect entire generes of games, and make enough money off of things like "Dungeon Keeper Mobile" that it and games like "Trexels" become a viable business strategy which overshadows all else.

. . .

Ideally the industry would take the time and effort to support all gamers, it would produce the casual games (including shooters), the turn based RPGs, the adventure games, metroidvania platformers and similar things in numbers sufficient to at least keep the gamers fairly satisfied, as opposed to focusing on the same money-grabbing garbage each year and maybe kicking over a decent RPG once in a blue moon (and once they do, casualization to make things "even more popular" sets in and generally divides the fan base). Neglect major audiences, especially groups like RPG fans that really were responsible for the gaming industry getting to the point where it is now, and expect backlash. Right now though the industry won't do that, it's content to simply focus on the most profitable sectors, rather than dealing with still profitable but not as profitable groups like serious RPG gamers, and as a result you see these kinds of tensions.

. . .

2. I'll be blunt, I'm not sure if the gaming industry can be saved, which is why I am one of those who has been suspecting that there will be another crash. We're at a point right now where "real gamers" really don't represent enough of a financial stake compared to casuals that we can influence all that much. By costing the gaming industry money, all we do is cause it to do is consider re-investing more towards casual games. Indeed we already see industry announcements about this with a lot of companies saying they want to move away from AAA game development entirely to focus on the new frontier of "app space" and micro-transaction fueled cash grabs. They pretty much want to sheer the sheeple as long and hard as they can.

. . .

Or in short, I keep trying, but at the end of the day when I look at things rationally I think we're doomed. It's sort of like my thoughts on "Occupy Wall Street" where people rallied without the violence, that means nothing (except an eyesore) to people who can just fly over the crowds in their private helicopters. Right now the industry ultimately holds so many cards, that they can kind of ignore us, which is half the problem. Your typical publisher's attitude is akin to "I'm sorry, I can't hear what your saying over the sounds of all these counting machines sorting my money..."

I'm mostly adressing the bolded parts. Great post, though.

Although I agree with you wholeheartedly, I feel that one has to look to the movie industry to gain a proper understanding of what is happening to gaming right now. It's not a perfect analogy, of course, as the two forms of media are massively different, but hardcore gamers are becoming akin to film buffs. Within the consumer base for their preferred form of media they are the vast minority, and as such big budget AAA releases are unlikely to satisfy them, though occasionally a good one does stumble along.

In the same way the best films are not those the average consumer heads off to see, and are often indie or whatever, the best games are going to be made by indie developers. The two are actually oddly analogous at the moment as big budget releases are relegated to soulless cash-grabs and endless sequels and remakes. Anyway, for hardcore gamers, it's likely that they will never be catered to with games with bloated budgets, but they will always get something, albeit shorter and less graphically cutting-edge than it could be.

That said, this shift differs from film in that films started out as a broadly accepted form of media. This is more akin to another sort of hobby going mainstream, but videogames are practically alone in the category of casualisable hobbies. This is due to the fact that videogames can be made that don't require any previous investment of energy and time for enjoyment. And, of course, anything that can be enjoyed without any effort on the consumer's part is something that caters to large swaths of the population, and opens it up to people who invested their hobbying elsewhere (or are idiots and sheep).

Because the people (publishers) who fund big-budget games (or movies) are in it solely for the money, most of those games will go mainstream once the companies figure out how to market it to that broader audience. This change was inevitable. When it comes to developers who pull this same shit (i.e. mobile developers), my analogy falls short. I'd come up with some way to make sense of this, but I'm just too lazy :P

So the point I'm trying to make is that, while in a perfect world AAA games would meet hardcore gamer standards for whatever genre they're in (and be made for every genre), this would be the same world where 200 million dollar films would be made that cater to film buffs. It's not a great analogy, as film buffs are a far lesser percentage of movie-goers than hardcore gamers are of gamers as a whole, but I think it gets the job done. If anything, it allows hope that we can change the industry.

I've also heard the "a crash is inevitable" argument in regards to the movie industry as well, as it has the same sequelitis and reboot-mania problem as video games, and the same vast quantity of shitty big-budget projects put out every year. The actual argument is more involved but, again, I'm lazy.

Now, to make all this relevant to entitlement. Certain gamers have invested so much time and effort in their gaming that they feel entitled to be catered to. That's probably not going to happen in the manner to which they're accustomed again (though anything is possible), so they're going to complain. Although some of these people may be twats about it, if you've invested a few thousand hours of time in gaming, and have become involved in gaming culture, I don't think it's terrible to feel entitled in that manner. I don't and I'll just live with the change, but some people can't go with the flow. Of course, I vote with my wallet (no money to EA or microtransaction or F2P or day 1 DLC or any of that bullshit) on the off chance everyone else decides to join in, the casual sheeple get tired of being sheared, and COD players finally realise it's the same game every time and stop wasting their money, and force change in the industry, but I'm not holding my breath.

I think that Jim and others dismiss all criticisms as angry misogyny, and that's a problem.

They're not. They're dismissing a large chunk as angry misogyny, which given the fact that they threaten her, dosmiss her for being a woman and often haven't even watched the videos certainly looks true.

As someone who refuses to identify as a gamer anymore, in general, I have to say that there's still a tremendous amount of elitist toxicity in the gaming community as a whole. It seems like it's just flat out to be expected to have a LoL vs DoTA argument end in flames with monkeys throwing shit at other monkeys because their game is better. It seems like, if I got into WoW, I wouldn't be able to share it, because suddenly, that would make me less of a gamer, and my gamer-peen is somehow shorter because I didn't get into something edgy and more hardcore.

I used to let it get to me, but I've stopped caring. I play video games, don't get me wrong. I play them for fun. I'm still going to defend someone when a horde of elitists attacks them, too, regardless of gender-- wait, stop right there. The fact that I had to add that, 'regardless of gender', puts forth my point stronger than I ever could without following a real writing process for this post.

Complaining about a product because you expect more is one thing. There's some downright shady practices in the industry today, and I agree that it's absolutely killing it. Even if they're in the wrong, if they don't like it, they can complain, and cast a vote with their wallet on whether or not they support a practice-- this is also why reviews are important, and why my next point is going to hurt.

Like Jim said, when reviewers have to worry about giving an honest opinion on a game just because there might be some rabid fans there with their fingers poised over their keyboards, their lack of understanding of the english language and death threats in hand. I'm not going to finish that statement. Instead, I'm just going to say, if I was a reviewer, I'd be extremely careful of what I said too, even if it got in the way of exposing flaws in a bad game, or highlighting the gems in a legitimately good title that went unrecognized.

Still, when you get flamed, ostracized and called terrible things, just for admitting that you helped Anita Sarkeesian's kickstarter, and are satisfied with what she had to offer from it, even to this date, while all you really do, at the end of the day, is play video games for fun, because you enjoy them, and don't want to identify with someone who would impose their opinions as if they were religion, you'd probably stop identifying with the term 'gamer' too.

I like 'video game enthusiast'; it's much more fitting. I do it as a hobby, a really big one at that, and I'd prefer to associate with a word that implies my discussions about games are good ("Oh, you play Call of Duty? Cool. I'm NOT going to call you a plebian, and am instead going to take genuine interest in why you like Call of Duty.")

tl;dr: Jim's right. Though, I think there's more toxic people in the gamer community than he's implying.

Look I have watched, rewatched, and rewatched again all of Anita's Videos over and over again. The woman straight out blames a perpetuated misogynistic view of women, by gamers, because of how they are portrayed in video games.

As in all you right here, are misogynists because of games portrayal of women. That is her very thesis. I am not making this shit up, that is her damned basic premise for all her videos.

This is Wacko Jacko ENTIRELY in a nutshell. We are all out to be angry murderers because we play violent games.

She is blaming the entirety of the gaming community for a negative aspect of humanity as a whole for the media we consume, and she is getting a damned free pass on the simple principle of being a woman.

Jack Thompson was threatened by people who actually knew where he lived in massive numbers. Anita was threatened on the Internet, both bad, but he had actual reason to fear for his life.

She has told all gamers we are Misogynists because of games.

Just like Jack Thompson insists we were all murderers in the making for violent video games. These are the exact same premise. And the gaming community is sick and tired of being told they are terrible and horrible and it's because of the games they play.

It doesn't matter if they have a good point or not. People are against her because she blames the very community she tries to reach. The fact that many of you don't get this is extremely disturbing.

goliath6711:Okay, I have tried to ignore this. I have tried to move on from this. I had given my thoughts on this when it first happened and tried never to think about it again because it still fills me with a seething, smoldering rage every time I think about it. But it's been TWO DAMN YEARS and people just won't let this issue die. So let me give my definitive final thoughts on the whole Mass Effect 3 Ending Scandal. aka "One Set of Arrogant Douchebags vs Another Set of Arrogant Douchebags where one set at least has the advantage of actually being the ones that made the game." Okay, here it goes:

...tons of text...

So don't come to me and cry about how much time, effort and money you spent and what you feel that you're owed. Because guess what, I spent the same time, effort and money. And while it may not have been presented perfectly, I felt that I was given everything that was promised to me as an ending to this series. If you don't that's YOUR problem, not mine and not anyone else that disagrees with you. I personally think that last year's Tomb Raider was presented in previews as an insult to me as a fan of the Tomb Raider games that came before it and you couldn't pay me $60 to even try it. Yet I didn't seek out every positive review and forum post gushing over the game and tell them how much of a doofus they all collectively were and try to say that they're somehow trying to misrepresent it and should be fired. Because the thing that you all seem to forget is that the one thing that you were raging over was based off of your OPINION. And as such, your opinion does not need to matter to everyone else. If you attempted to play a game and it didn't work, i.e. the game locks up, the sound goes out when it's not supposed to, then that's on the company. If you didn't like the method of how the game is being played, then that's on you. No game is made to cater to you and ONLY you above everyone else.

Unfortunately, all of this "Bioware developed what they wanted, live with it" can be easily negated, since the endings that were released aren't even what the actual developers wanted.

Lead writers wrote it all, shoved it through, and didn't even get it vetted from the other writers. And now it's too late.

The absolute dumbfounding thing about it is that it appears the ending was the last thing they wrote. They literally had no plan on how to end the series. You'd think it would have been something they thought through sometime during the development of Mass Effect 2...you know, so as not to write themselves into a corner? Then they procede to do just that.

The fact remains that Bioware screwed it up in a completely unprecedented way not seen in the history of video games. Never before has a series promised so much customization out of its story and broken so many promises in the end result.

When Bioware writers criticize the Deus Ex: HR ending and then procede to do the exact same thing, when Bioware *advertised* the game using such taglines as "experience the beginning, middle, and end of an emotional story unlike any other, where the decisions you make completely shape your experience and outcome" and "Along the way, your choices drive powerful outcomes, including relationships with key characters, the fate of entire civilizations, and even radically different ending scenarios." they deserve all criticism for lying to our faces.

If you're fine with getting lied to, ok. But to get angry at the people who actually DO get angry for being lied to? Well, perhaps rewatch this week's Jimquisition.

My issue with the whole ME3 ending thing is that you had people forming whole gamer movements to get Bioware to change it. Okay sure, criticize, begrudge, bemoan, whine, complain, whatever; but when you start forming whole movements, esp. ones arrogantly called "Retake Mass Effect," then you've crossed the line into entitlement and ridiculous levels of entitlement to boot. "Retake Mass Effect???" You can't retake something that was never yours to begin with.

Anyway, I don't have a problem if people like what I don't like as long as they're civil about it. ...which is hard to find on the Internet.

ultreos2:Look I have watched, rewatched, and rewatched again all of Anita's Videos over and over again. The woman straight out blames a perpetuated misogynistic view of women, by gamers, because of how they are portrayed in video games.

As in all you right here, are misogynists because of games portrayal of women. That is her very thesis. I am not making this shit up, that is her damned basic premise for all her videos.

This is Wacko Jacko ENTIRELY in a nutshell. We are all out to be angry murderers because we play violent games.

She is blaming the entirety of the gaming community for a negative aspect of humanity as a whole for the media we consume, and she is getting a damned free pass on the simple principle of being a woman.

Jack Thompson was threatened by people who actually knew where he lived in massive numbers. Anita was threatened on the Internet, both bad, but he had actual reason to fear for his life.

She has told all gamers we are Misogynists because of games.

Just like Jack Thompson insists we were all murderers in the making for violent video games. These are the exact same premise. And the gaming community is sick and tired of being told they are terrible and horrible and it's because of the games they play.

It doesn't matter if they have a good point or not. People are against her because she blames the very community she tries to reach. The fact that many of you don't get this is extremely disturbing.

Did she ever say that explicitly?

Did she, in any statement online or off, explicitly say that every member of the gaming community is misogynistic?

Now personally, I have no problem swallowing my pride when it comes to the possibility that a work can unintentionally portray a social group in an negative light or perpetuate some bad ideals.

Besides Jack Thompson talked in absolutes and dealt in absolutes. Sarkessian acknowledges that great works can still be great despite their flaws.